pull down to refresh

Funnily enough, this is a real scaling thing unlike most of the scaling fud you hear about... the minimum spend inclusive of fees is the only bottleneck anywhere in sight for retail users, not throughput.
0.01 sat/vB
I think it gets a little trickier than this because there's no fractions of a sat possible in a tx, so needs to deal with whole sats. Should be able to just allow 1 sat (or 10? 100?) per tx.
This doesn't help with scaling. But it could bring more granularity to fee market and keep it public.
I don't see the problem with the fraction. You still send whole amounts of sats. Fee rate is only a tool to compare the absolute fees. So in the example above, you could relay simple transaction (141 vB) for 2 sat →  0,014 sat/vB
reply
doesn't help with scaling
Neither does anything else, thats the joke... but it does move the needle on people who are the subject of scaling virtue signals by reducing overall fee requirements.
I'm not in-depthly familiar at the implementation level to know if the fractional sats would work or not, I just think not, not a consensus thing but rather because I think a PR would be a little more complicated than changing the denominator.
reply
Good joke :-)
But the idea doesn't introduce fractional sats. It's very delicate change than any node runner can do.
reply
there's no fractions of a sat possible in a tx
It is possible and happens all the time, as there is no txfee field in tx data structure, it's just (sum_of_inputs - sum_of_outputs) / tx_vsize.
reply
Yes, but you are talking about fee rate. Fee is not in fractions of sats
  • By fee I mean sum_of_outputs-sum_of_inputs
  • By fee rate I mean fee/tx_vsize
reply
minrelaytxfee specifies fee rate, not total fee.
reply
Yes
reply